"Makes perfect sense. Socialism is in part predicated on the idea that 'others' cannot manage their lives and affairs as well as the leadership can, and hence the leadership must control, in their wise and benevolent hands, the assets of the group."
Let's be clear here, though. Let's assume that someone wanted to open up a tofu-and-hammocks arrangement under a capitalist model rather than this communist one.
They'd still buy some land, set up a shop, get people to show up and work. The owners are in control either way.
The capitalist model assumes the workers would also like a nice life for themselves and pays them accordingly, and produces a product that can survive competitively. As a result the workers and the owners share and enjoy.
The difference is that in the communist model the owners lie to their work force about who's really in charge, pay them next to nothing, and work them in miserable conditions. Only the owners gain any wealth out of this; the workers get nothing and if they leave, leave with nothing.
Just a case example to keep in mind next time some lib starts playing the class envy card; under the communist model ONLY the already-rich benefit.
Good clarification. BTW I don't begrudge the original founders maintaining control of thier original idea and land purchase. I presume that in the case of this commune this is made clear to prospective members. It is in essence a 'lifestyle themepark' experience the leadership provide to their members.